This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)

From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
To: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at wasabisystems dot com>
Cc: Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:24:03 -0800
Subject: Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
References: <200403091809.i29I9P04020607@sirius.codesourcery.com><200403111030.14616.ebotcazou@act-europe.fr><40573108.4080602@codesourcery.com><16471.12911.55000.733792@gargle.gargle.HOWL><m3hdwoaf9w.fsf@gossamer.airs.com>

Ian Lance Taylor <ian@wasabisystems.com> writes:
> Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com> writes:
>> Perhaps we need asm("":::"barrier")?
>
> Seconded.  For high performance device manipulation, it would be good
> to have a way to say "do not schedule instructions across this point"
> without also saying "clobber everything".

__builtin_fence() (possibly with an argument to request various sorts
of memory barriers that various architectures have) seems preferable
to me over asm()...

zw

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Paul Koning

References:
- GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Paul Koning
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]